3 ms·
So your point is the laws prohibiting people from blocking major traffic highways are racist and should be abandoned, and people should be granted free pedestri
by smsm42 3y ago
So your point is the laws prohibiting people from blocking major traffic highways are racist and should be abandoned, and people should be granted free pedestrian access to the highways, while driving should not be performed on them at all? Or what's the point of comparing this to the "whites only" sit-ins? Are people wanting to drive on the highway doing it because they are racist?
- einpoklum 3y ago> So your point is the laws prohibiting people from blocking major traffic highways are racist and should be abandoned, Laws buttress/codify the current social order, and forbid shaking it up, in particular through disruptive protest. If the social order is racist, then these laws will be used to preserve racism. They're inherently repressive, not inherently racist. If you're the government - you don't want to abandon them. If you're a social movement - you're against their existence (if you're more principled), or against their enforcement in your case (if you're more opportunistic).
- smsm42 3y ago> If the social order is racist, then these laws will be used to preserve racism That's a very convenient "if". I just declare social order is racist, so the laws no longer apply to me and any lawless action I take instead of being a crime becomes struggle against racism. Nice deal. Except the society that allows such deals can not survive. Of course, if you want to destroy the society - either because you genuinely think it's "racist" or because you just don't care - then you don't have a valid base for complaint when the society tries to defend itself and arrests you. You are literally destroying it, what else should it do?